Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 Claims 1, 4-10, 30, 38, 39, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2 §103(a) over Murai in view of Degner.
3 Claims 3, 21, 25, 27, 31, 33-37, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
4 §103(a) over Murai in view of Degner and Saito.
5 Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 25, 27, 30, 31, and 33-41 stand rejected under 35
6 U.S.C. §103(a) over Saito in view of Degner.
7 Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 25, 27, 30, 31, and 33-41 stand rejected under 35
8 U.S.C. §103(a) over Degner in view of Saito.
9 The Examiner contends that the combined teachings of the references
10 would have made the claimed subject matter obvious (e.g., Answer, p. 4, l.
11 21- p. 5, l. 3), the motivation to combine can be found in the references and
12 skill in the art generally (Answer, p. 24, l. 14- p. 25, l. 5), and the declaration
13 evidence does not show unexpected results (Answer, p. 21, l. 7 - p. 22, l. 3).
14 The Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not
15 have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). More
16 specifically, for the multiple rejections the Appellants contend that the art
17 lacks a motivation to combine (e.g., Br. p. 11, ll. 14-15), the cited references
18 do not teach the claimed properties (e.g., Br. p. 10, ll. 8-9), and that the
19 declaration evidence overcomes any prima facie case of obviousness (e.g.,
20 Br. p. 9, ll. 19-21).
21
22 We AFFIRM.
23
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013